Justia U.S. D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The DC Circuit held that FERC did not adequately justify its approval of the tariff amendment at issue here, which prohibited cost sharing for a category of high-voltage projects conceded to have significant regional benefits, and which did so only because those projects reflected the planning criteria of individual utilities. The court granted the petitions for review, holding that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the tariff amendment and applying it to the Elmont-Cunningham and Cunningham-Dooms projects. The court set aside the orders under review to the extent that they approved the amendment and applied it to the two projects, and remand for further proceedings View "Old Dominion Electric Coop. v. FERC" on Justia Law

Defendants Lovo and Sorto were convicted of conspiring to interfere with interstate commerce by robbery, and using, carrying or possessing a firearm during a crime of violence. The DC Circuit rejected defendants' claim that the residual clause of the statutory crime of violence definition that affects them was unconstitutionally vague.After the court issued its opinion, the Supreme Court held in Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204, 1210 (2018), that 18 U.S.C. 16(b) -- the residual clause of section 16's crime of violence definition -- was unconstitutionally vague. In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Dimaya, the court granted rehearing for the limited purpose of vacating defendants' firearm convictions. The court remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Eshetu" on Justia Law

Advanced Life petitioned for review of the Board's order determining that the company was liable for two violations of Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act based on the owner's statements immediately before and four months after the election that tied the temporary halt in wage increases to the need to negotiate with the Union; two violations of section 8(a)(3) for discriminatorily ceasing pay raises and Christmas bonuses following the election; and one violation of Section 8(a)(5) for unilaterally changing the employees' wages by halting the Christmas gifts.The DC Circuit held that the Board's finding that the owner's two statements -- both of which were made proximate to the Union election and in his capacity as Advanced Life's owner and operator -- violated Section 8(a)(1) was supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the court denied the petition as to that claim and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. In regard to the remaining claims, the court granted Advanced Life's petition for review where no substantial evidence supported the finding that the company had a discriminatory motive in denying pay increases; and substantial evidence did not support treating Christmas bonuses as company wages or bonuses. View "Advanced Life Systems Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

CC1 petitioned for review of the Board's determination that it unlawfully fired several employees who had engaged in work stoppages. The DC Circuit held that there was substantial evidence that one of the discharged employees played no part in a work stoppage. However, the court remanded for further explanation of the Board's conclusion that the striking employees were unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected activity. The court denied the petition in all other respects and granted the Board's cross-application for enforcement. View "CC1 Limited Partnership v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after he pleaded guilty to drug-related charges. In this case, the government breached the agreement by failing to schedule defendant's superior court pleas to follow his federal sentencing and by recommending that he be sentenced to 33 months' incarceration. The DC Circuit held that the government breached its plea agreement with defendant, but that it could not vacate his sentence because the error was not plain. However, the court remanded defendant's ineffective assistance claim for further proceedings in the district court because plaintiff raised a colorable claim of ineffective assistance by asserting that counsel failed to object to the government's breach of the plea agreement. View "United States v. Murray" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit denied a petition for review challenging FERC's orders approving an exemption to the minimum offer price rule in the ISO New England forward capacity market for a limited amount of qualifying renewable energy. The court held that FERC engaged in reasoned decisionmaking to find that the renewable exemption to the minimum offer price rule resulted in a just and reasonable rate. The court also held that FERC did not abuse its discretion by denying petitioners' request for a hearing and the Commission did not abuse its discretion by relying on the written record to resolve disputes of material fact. View "NextEra Energy Resources, LLC v. FERC" on Justia Law

Petitioners challenged FERC's refund order in a cost-allocation case where the agency found that the rate-distribution methodology was unjust and unreasonable. FERC ordered refunds to customers who paid too much, funded by surcharges on customers who paid too little. The DC Circuit denied the petitions for review and held that the reallocation at issue did not constitute an impermissible retroactive rate increase where FERC reasonably determined that the prior rate methodology was unjust and unreasonable, and its reliance on certain evidence in reaching this conclusion was appropriate. FERC had authority to order refunds and corresponding surcharges under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act and its broad remedial authority under Section 309, because it had established that the existing rate was unjust and unreasonable, and that a different methodology would comply with cost-causation principles. View "Verso Corp. v. FERC" on Justia Law

In previous decisions, the DC Circuit held that, notwithstanding the lapse of a Board quorum, Regional Directors retain authority to direct elections administered under a so-called stipulated election agreement—an agreement under which the employer and union agree to have a Regional Director conduct the election, but subject to the possibility of Board review if a party opts to seek it. This case involved a consent election agreement, rather than a stipulated election agreement. At issue was whether a Regional Director, if the Board itself had lost power to take any action, could exercise Board-delegated authority to conduct a representation election and certify the results. After remand, the court held that the Board's understanding of the statute was reasonable where the Board saw no salient difference between consent election agreements and stipulated election agreements. The court rejected Barstow's various challenges to the Board's finding of unfair labor practices and to the remedies imposed by the Board. Accordingly, the court denied Barstow's petition for review. View "Hospital of Barstow, Inc. v. NLRB" on Justia Law

Appellant, a dual citizen of the United States and Canada and incarcerated in the United States where he was convicted of a felony, sought a transfer under a treaty between the United States and Canada to a Canadian prison. The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint and held that the government's self-execution argument was non-jurisdictional and thus did not affect the court's subject matter jurisdiction to consider appellant's case under 28 U.S.C. 1331; even assuming the treaty was not self-executing, the government's position that appellant must rely exclusively on the implementing legislation was flawed, because the text and legislative history of the treaty and the legislation showed that the latter incorporated the substantive standards of the former, making those standards part of domestic law; the treaty provision on which appellant relied provides law to apply, although the scope of judicial review was narrow, limited to the terms of that provision and not reaching the correctness of the assessment or the outcome; and consistent with the narrow scope of judicial review, the denial of appellant's transfer was not arbitrary and capricious. View "Sluss v. DOJ" on Justia Law

The DC Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of an insurance company in a breach of contract dispute over a homeowners insurance policy. The court held that plaintiffs could not recover under the clear terms of their insurance policy where plaintiffs were away from their beach home for ten days and failed to shut off the water supply where it entered the house. In this case, there was no question that the damage for which they sought coverage was caused by flooding from the plumbing. The court also affirmed the district court's transfer of the claims against the cleaning-and-restoration company to the district court in Delaware based on lack of personal jurisdiction. View "Katopothis v. Windsor-Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law